Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 356 (AP)

Chinta Sambasiva Rao @ Sambayya v. State Of A. P.

2005-04-13

BILAL NAZKI, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2005
BILAL NAZKI, ACJ. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the sole accused against the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is also fined a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. The allegations against the accused were that on 10/11th January, 2001, in between 10. 00 p. m. and 2. 00 a. m. he committed the murder of one Mariyadas by beating him with a pestle on the left side of his forehead and left eye brow. To the charge framed by the trial court, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of no evidence where every witness has spoken about suspicion and suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the form of proof and become the basis for conviction of an innocent person. ( 4 ) THE prosecution story was that the accused was suspecting that his wife had illicit relationship with the deceased and therefore, he committed his murder. There is no direct evidence and the prosecution tried to establish its case against the accused on the basis of three circumstances viz. , (i) that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the accused, (ii) that prior to the occurrence, the accused had threatened the deceased that he would commit his murder and (iii) that the accused made an extra judicial confession before one of the witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that all these three circumstances have not been proved and even if they were proved, they were not sufficient to convict the appellant. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is the Village Administrative officer, who filed the report with the police, ex. P-1. He has no personal knowledge. Whatever he has stated in the report or in the statement before the court is on the basis of knowledge he gathered from others. According to this witness, there was some quarrel on the preceding night between the deceased and the accused but the information regarding this fight had also been acquired by him from others. Whatever he has stated in the report or in the statement before the court is on the basis of knowledge he gathered from others. According to this witness, there was some quarrel on the preceding night between the deceased and the accused but the information regarding this fight had also been acquired by him from others. P. W. 2, who is a nighbour, stated that on the night previous to the death of the deceased, the accused was drunk and he himself set fire to the hay rick roof of the verandah of his house. At that time, some people put off the fire and therefore, he sent word to the mother-in-law of the accused that the accused was in a drunken state and had set fire to his house. By that time, the wife of the accused, due to ill health, was also residing with her mother in her house. After the mother-in-law of the accused received her message, the mother-in-law of the accused and the wife of the accused came to the house of the accused. They took away the accused along with them. While the accused was being taken away by his wife ahd mother-in-law, he saw the deceased and threatened him that he would take his life. On the following day, in the morning, they saw the dead body of the deceased with a head injury. They also saw blood on the floor. They suspected that the accused had committed the murder. Similarly, p. W. 3, who is also a neighbour, stated that on 10-1-2001, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At that time, the accused was in a drunken state and he was making galata. Then the accused set fire to his house. At that time, they put off the flames and then they sent word to the wife and mother-in-law of the accused. Then the mother-in-law and the wife of the accused came. They took away the accused along with them. While he was being taken, he threatened that he would see the end of the deceased before the next day morning. On the next day morning, they saw the body of the deceased and suspected the accused. P. W. 4 is the wife of the accused. They took away the accused along with them. While he was being taken, he threatened that he would see the end of the deceased before the next day morning. On the next day morning, they saw the body of the deceased and suspected the accused. P. W. 4 is the wife of the accused. She also stated that P. W. 3 had sent a word to her that the accused was trying to set fire to his house. Then she along with her mothercame to the house of the accused and took him to the house of her mother. At that time, her husband-accused was drunk. At about 1. 00 a. m. in the night, the accused left the house of her mother and went to his house. She did not know where he had gone. On the next day morning, she came to know about the death of the deceased and she heard people talking about her husband having murdered the deceased. After the accused left her mother s house, he did not return to their house. P. W. 5 is the mother-in-law of the accused. She also narrated the same story which was narrated by the other witnesses. She however admitted that after the accused left her house at 1. 00 a. m. , he returned to her house at 2. 00 a. m. , which is contradicted by p. W. 4, the wife of the accused, who stated that after leaving her mother s house, at 1. 00 a. m. , the accused did not return to their house. P. W. 5 further stated that when the accused returned at 2. 00 a. m. , she told the accused that people were talking that he had killed Mariadas. Then the accused had told her that he had killed Mariadas by beating him with a pestle. According to this statement, the accused made this confession before p. W. 5 at 2. 00 a. m. But the dead body was found much after and at 2. 00 a. m. it was not known to any witness that the deceased had been murdered. P. W. 4 does not say anything about the extra judicial confession. According to this statement, the accused made this confession before p. W. 5 at 2. 00 a. m. But the dead body was found much after and at 2. 00 a. m. it was not known to any witness that the deceased had been murdered. P. W. 4 does not say anything about the extra judicial confession. P. W. 5 s statement cannot be believed particularly in view of the fact that the alleged confession made by the accused has been retracted and denied by him in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. All other witness are formal witnesses. Therefore, we do not think that there is any evidence to prove any circumstances against the accused. No witness has conclusively stated anything which would even remotely show that the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of the accused. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 302 IPC are set aside. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The fine amount if paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant.